The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump's Appeal to Working Class, and Michelle Obama's Wild Marriage Rule, with Sean O'Brien and RealClearPolitics Hosts | Ep. 1073

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Sean O'Brien, General President of the Teamsters, to discuss his experience meeting with President Biden and what he saw, Kamala Harris’ treatment of his members and all Americans, the arrogance of the Democratic party today, how the Democrats are increasingly out of touch with the working and middle class, their failed attempts at being more relatable, O’Brien’s historic RNC speech and what Trump told him before, why Trump is resonating with the working class, Robert De Niro’s lecture and why Trump is actually helping the American film industry, Trump's discussions with O'Brien now and how he's bringing jobs back to America, Jeff Bezos vs. his workers, and more. Then Tom Bevan, Carl Cannon, and Andrew Walworth of the RealClearPolitics Podcast join to discuss the arguments at the Supreme Court about birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions overall, the lawfare against Trump stopping his administration's actions, the backlash Jake Tapper’s already received ahead of his book release, his new messaging admitting "humility" over his past Biden coverage, the troubling questions Democrats and the media have to answer about their cover-up, the absurd and racist coverage of the Afrikaners refugees, and more. Then Megyn addresses Michelle Obama's new complaints and her wild marriage rule with Barack.O'Brien- https://teamster.org/Bevan, Walworth, & Cannon- https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Everglades Foundation: Learn more about President Trump’s Everglades support project at https://www.EvergladesFoundation.orgSelect Quote: Get the right life insurance for YOU, for LESS at https://www.SelectQuote.com/MEGYNLean: Visit https://TakeLean.com & use code MK20 for 20% offTax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/MEGYN to speak with a strategist for FREE todayFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. More shocking revelations about just how bad things got with Biden at the end of his term. All right, we wrote that in script, but I gotta be, I'm not shocked. Are we, are any of us really shocked? It's like, we all knew, we knew, we knew, we knew. We may not have known the specific details, but I mean, I guess what's, no, there's nothing shocking. There's just, it's just not shocking. It's just like, it's shocking that he actually lived to the day of Trump's inauguration. That's what's shocking. But I'm still interested. I'm reading the stuff. Are you interested? Are you interested in these details as they come out?

Now there's a guy coming out saying that what's in the Tapper-Thompson book actually may not be true. There was a very interesting segment on Mark Halperin's show saying, were this a guy who was in attendance when Joe Biden met George Clooney, who said, I'm telling you, it was Biden's finance chair, who said, I'm telling you right now that they got this story from George Clooney and it's a lie. He wasn't defending Biden's mental acuity, but he was like, this is George Clooney being George Clooney. Like, oh, he didn't know me. But he was like, he that's not what happened. He walked in and the president's representatives were like George Clooney and Julia Roberts. And they walked in the room and said, hi, George. Hi, Julia. Like there was no mystery to it. So is is the book even factually correct? I don't know. The whole drama around it is kind

of interesting. You guys know that they're coming on the show on Tuesday. That will be interesting. We'll get to all that when the guys from Real Clear Politics join me later. But first, a first-time guest on The Megyn Kelly Show who made big headlines last year when he did something many thought would be impossible. He, head of the Teamsters Union, spoke at the Republican National Convention. Sean O'Brien is general president of the Teamsters Union, spoke at the Republican National Convention. Sean O'Brien is general president of the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters and host of the Better Bad Ideas podcast. He joins me now. Since President Trump's election, the eyes of the nation have been on Mar-a-Lago and the free state of Florida. It is a thriving, booming place. South Florida is a special place because of its amazing water for boating, swimming, fishing, and drinking. South Florida is a special place because of its amazing water

for boating, swimming, fishing, and drinking. Well, today, clean water is endangered by toxic algae. Did you know that? You may have heard of red tide or blue-green algae. It can be dangerous and it can be gross. In his first term, President Trump signed a law to solve the problem with a new reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee to keep clean, fresh water flowing constantly to South Florida. President Trump said after years of rebuilding other nations, we are finally rebuilding our nation. Washington can finish the job in next year's budget and keep President Trump's promise. The Everglades Foundation, our advertiser, says that would be very good for Florida and good for the Everglades.

Learn more about President Trump's Everglades support project at EvergladesFoundation.org. Sean, welcome to the show. Thank you very much. I appreciate you having us on the show. So nice to meet you. What do you make of that? Let me start there. You know all these Democrats. They've been coming to you for years trying to get your donations and get you to meet you. What do you make of that? Like, let me start there. Is you, you know, all these Democrats, they've been coming to you for years trying to get your donations and get you to support them. What do you make of all this news around Biden's mental acuity and the finger pointing on who knew? Yeah, well, you know, it's funny. We've been saying it since December

of 2023. When I first took over the Teamsters Union, our goal was to work bipartisan and work with the people that are going to represent working people, whether it's Democrat, Republican, or independents. And when we started down that road, it was ironic how fast the Democrats turned on us, some of them. They were very vindictive, very critical. But we knew that, you know, President Biden was failing, we could tell. I mean, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist or a medical professional to figure it out. And that we knew Kamala Harris wasn't the answer to what Americans needed, American working people. So it's funny now, everybody had amnesia when, and no pun intended, amnesia when the election was happening.

But now they are saying that the Democratic Party had this code of silence and no one knew how bad it was. I mean, come on, that's a little far-fetched, don't you think? I mean, how did I know? Well, it's like, how did half the country know? How did half of the press know and report on it? Just the left-wing press wouldn't. And those around Joe Biden downplayed it. Right. And you know what? They did him a disservice. I mean, when I met with him and I got to know him a little bit prior to the election

cycle, and it was kind of, you could tell he was deteriorating. And I used to tell people all the time, it kind of looks like elderly abuse, like, you know, people are forcing them into doing something they didn't want to do. It's like, you know, you're taking your grandmother or grandfather's license away. It's hard, but it's necessary at times. And I think he got bad advice. And the Democrats are in this position, finger pointing instead of taking a look in the mirror and saying, we're responsible for what we don't agree with in this country. Let's stop blaming everybody and let's blame ourselves for not having a strategic plan and or a vision to what they thought this country needed. And look, I'm a Democrat. There's no running from that. I grew up in the great city of Boston where I'm very proud. But, you know, we've got to call balls and strikes. And, you know, the candidates that they put forward after Joe Biden pulled out certainly is not the answer for this country. So you mentioned you didn't think Kamala Harris was going to be the answer back in 2020 looking at this pair if and when Joe Biden failed. Why is that? Look, I mean, I don't trust her, to be honest with you.

The way she talked to people, the way she demanded support. Look, the one thing that myself personally and I think most Americans, they don't want to be told what to do. They want to be told what someone is going to do for them. I mean, we pay their salaries. We're their constituents. And I know growing up where I grew up and I've been in trouble my entire life, when someone told me to do something, I always did the opposite, just to see what the consequences were going to be. And they didn't want to listen anymore. And you know, that's, they paid the consequence for it. What was she like when, when you guys met

with her? Cause you met with her in advance of the November vote. Yeah. So ironically, we've met with every presidential candidate. And I'll say this, President Trump, as soon as we reached out, because we've never done this before, we had a roundtable with rank and file members and our general executive board. We interviewed every single candidate. President Trump's team responded immediately in December of 23, saying we'd love to do it. Here's some dates. The Biden administration was very difficult to schedule and they pushed back probably till like May. And then when he got out of the race, Kamala Harris came in and very difficult to deal with. I mean, we gave each candidate 16 questions,

all the exact same. Previous to the meeting, most of the candidates answered all of them. Joe Biden answered about nine out of 16. And then when Kamala Harris came in to answer, her team was very clear that she was only going to answer a certain amount of questions. And halfway through, I got a note slipped under me saying that this will be the last question, and she only answered four of them. So it was a typical attitude where, you know, I'm going to be the president of the United States. And she said on the way out after she gave her closing statement to us that I'm going to win with you or without you.

So that was pretty arrogant. And, you know, we had a pretty diverse rank and file presence there, along with our general executive board. So, you know, it didn't sit well with us, didn't sit well with our members. And look, we polled extensively and 65 percent of our members were voting for President Trump. Why do you think she was so arrogant? That's just stupid politics. I mean, that's the kind of thing you say to your husband after you leave a contentious meeting, not to the people whose support you're asking for. Yeah. I mean, I just think it's, it was, it's the attitude of the party. I mean, for so long, uh, the party has, and I can speak for the team's union in my own opinion. Um, we've

given the Republican party millions upon millions, uh, Democratic Party millions upon millions of dollars. And I think they just thought it was like 10th grade geometry was a given. They were just going to get it, tell us what we wanted to hear and that they were going to win. And look, our members are sophisticated. I think the American people are a lot more sophisticated and they pay attention. And, you know, the arrogance, I think, was a downfall. You know, they talked to people like we were schoolchildren, you know, telling us what we should do, what we shouldn't do. And she's just not a good candidate. And the funny thing is, you know, when she talked about her intention, she embraced technology. She embraced a lot of things that will destroy American jobs. And she was actually reflecting upon what the Republicans used to say 20 years ago. So it was like a script was flipped and she just wasn't resonating with us. And her running

mate, I mean, really? I mean, that guy, he called me out saying, this was hilarious, calls me out saying, all the courageous union leaders that endorsed our ticket, um, you know, they should be applauded. And the ones that didn't have the courage, you know, basically, you know, screw. And I'm laughing at him. I'm like, here's a guy that has a false narrative of his service for this country. And he looks like a creepy wrestling coach in high school that you wouldn't want your kids rolling around the ground with. So, um, you know, I just thought that was funny coming from him. He didn't resonate with you with his camo hat and his attempt to look like a hunter? No, I mean, look, when it when and again, I've never served in the military regret I have. But,

you know, I wouldn't look at him as a as a war hero. I look at him maybe as like a cub scout or a boy scout, but that's about it. Yeah, well, he you know, they he's now admitted that they put him out there to be the guy who's going to attract working class white guys. I think that's you, that's your guys. So why do you think it didn't work? Well, it didn't work because, you know, he, he, he embraced the social justice warrior rhetoric that was going around from the far left. And my members, I know my members better than anybody else. And I know working people. During this election, it wasn't about social issues at all. It was about the economy. It was about jobs. It was about taking home more on your paycheck. It was about less inflation. And that's not the narrative they spoke in, which further leads to a point where

you've lost touch with the people that you should be representing and you don't talk to the people you should be representing. So that narrative clearly blew him out of the water. What do you think about that? Like the Democrats and their embrace of this social justice, woke, annoying, you know, the demonization of whites, white men in particular. I mean, I think it's a massive, massive vulnerability of theirs, and I don't think they're capable of fixing it. I just think that wing of their party is just metastasized into too big a blob to excise. But what do you think of it? Look, I think this, and I often tell people this, the Teamsters Union, and I'm a fourth

generation Teamster, we've been fighting social injustices through the work that we do on behalf of the members that we represent. We negotiate strong contracts. We make sure there's wage equality. We make certain that people are promoted based upon their ability. And that's what unions are for. You know, I think embracing all of this rhetoric of the social justice system that they've basically doubled down on, it's not what the Democrats or the Democratic people in this country. And the other disturbing piece is, you know, I've been in conflict my entire life, whether it was in my neighborhood I grew up with or my professional career. And it's OK to have dialogue. It's OK to have debate. It's okay to have debate.

It's okay to have difference of opinions. But this far left and this far left social justice revolution, as I look at it, if you don't agree with them and you don't look like them, then you're automatically cast as a racist person. I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood. I went to a very diverse high school. I've got very diverse friends. And, you know, they're clearly off the mark.

It's kind of like, you know, they lost the game and they're sore losers about it. Instead of like any other good team would do, step back, do a little adjusting, maybe, you know, get rid of some people at the DNC, embrace candidates that aren't so far left and that have the ability to work with people with difference of opinions, with different backgrounds and come to common ground and solutions to problems instead of creating problems. Have you seen them out there, a couple of these Democrats trying to like figure out what the magic formula is to win back the working class, which used to be voting Democrat and that what they're doing more and more is dropping the occasional F-bomb, which, as you know, only works if it's sincere, you know, if that's actually how you talk, if it's authentic to you. And everybody who actually does talk like that can smell these phonies from a mile away in their little Argyle sweaters, like sweater vests, as they're trying

to like pronounce carefully the F-U and the C K especially on it. So they can sound, they don't understand how to do it, Sean. No, listen, there's only, listen, being from Boston, we drop F bombs better than anybody. Right. And when you're out there, when you're out there, when you're out there looking like fucking Ward Cleaver, right. Trying to drop F bombs and it's not authentic. People see right through that. Um, but you it is you can't teach instinct and you can't teach a moral compass on certain people. And some of these people that are trying to act out now and trying to be something they're not this country is to stop pointing fingers. I mean, I got pissed off. And look, I've called Republicans out. I've called, I call balls and strikes. And, and what happens is, you know, I had this, I was getting criticized from the far left because we didn't do what most normal, most people did. We did the normal thing and listened to our members. And I

was getting killed from the left. I was getting killed from the far right, especially after the RNC speech. And, you know, I started calling out the DSA operatives for defaming historic buildings and statutes in DC, burning the flag. But every time I called them out, they had an answer. Like I called someone on them. You think it's okay to burn the American flag? Their answer is, well, the Supreme Court doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. But morally, you don't think there's a problem with you burning the flag, taking a knee for the national anthem? That's bullshit. People fought long and hard, men and women, sacrificed their lives for the freedom of this country. Respect the fucking country. I mean, that's the reality of it. And that's where it's too far left. Yes. Oh, my God.

It's the music to my ears. I completely agree. They they lost the regular Americans with their far left ideals. You listen to I was recently listening to a speech that or not a speech, which is an interview that Justice Antonin Scalia gave back when he was still alive and on the Supreme Court. And he was saying because he was a pivotal vote and I think wrote the opinion in that Supreme Court decision that upheld people's ability to burn the flag as a constitutional matter, because this is the United States of America and it's free speech. And then he just went off on how terrible he

thinks it is and how if Antonin Scalia were a, you know, lawmaker or trying or in an influencer position, yes, he would tell everybody not to do that. It's terrible. It's a poor, what are you doing? He would say the same message you did, but he, as a jurist, he had no choice but to interpret the constitution the way it is. It's like normal people. But isn't that troubling though? Think about that. Like, you know, he couldn't interpret it the way he wanted to, right? Because of his position, right? We have an ability. But it's good. I mean, like we need more judges like that, right? Like he, he used to say like, I'm, I'm really kind of a slave to the constitution and the law. You want to hear us interpret, we come up with

bad decisions that wind up kind of stupid. It's because we have some laws that are bad and kind of stupid. And it's not up his whole constitutional philosophy was it's not up to people in robes to like overrule the legislature. That's a leftist judges thinking, you know, it's a living, breathing constitution. He's like, no, there's nothing in there about banning, you know, the death penalty, for example. That was legal in all 50 states or all states that we had when we adopted the constitution. Don't tell me that's in there because I know it's not. He doesn't like judges who read things in there. I feel like today we got judges all over the country who read stuff in there like a right to gay sex and a right to abortion that are clearly not written in the document.

Well, Scalia, I mean, I wasn't a big fan of his Janus decision, you know, and we probably have different opinions on right to work. I don't think right to work is good, but he heard us there. But as far as desecrating memorials, as far as desecrating the American flag, anybody that does that should be charged with a crime. I'm sorry. See, I think it's not a crime, but we should shame them. We should totally shame them. They should be ostracized. I'm totally in favor of Colin Kaepernick not making his way back into the NFL after all the disrespect he paid our flag. That's, I think, how you do it.

You shun them, which is why I have to say it's why I think it's so stupid that these schools that have their valedictorians this time of year have to run their speech by the principal. It's like a great story. The way we did it when you and I were growing up is if you get up there, you say something stupid, you get shunned and ostracized by your classmates and you learn the hard way. Then you really never do it again. What's your story? Or if you speak the truth, you get a high five, right? Even if it's not popular.

So the RNC speech was great. Same thing. You've got the operatives in the RNC speech was great. Same thing. You've got the operatives in the RNC. And, you know, I did the keynote speech, as you know, the Monday night of the RNC. So prior to this, you know, we're preparing our speech, my team, and it was a three, four week process going back and forth. And then we've got to submit the speech to the RNC. Now, if you listen to my speech, I didn't choose a side in that whole speech. It was basically a message on behalf of American workers. I called out corporate elites. I've called out corporations. I called out the far left. Let me pause you one second. Let me air some of it because we have a highlight reel and then you pick up your story in the back end. Watch. Here's some highlights from it. Today, the Chiefs are here to say we are not beholden to anyone or any party. And I don't

care about getting criticized. It's an honor to be the first teamster in our 121 year history to address the Republican National Convention. Think about this, the teachers are doing something correct. If the extremes in both parties think I shouldn't be on this stage. You can have whatever opinion you want, but one thing is clear, President Trump is a candidate who is not afraid of hearing from new, loud, and often critical voices. And I think we all can agree whether people like him or they don't like him. In light of what happened to him on Saturday, he has proven to be one tough S.O.B. I was there. That was very powerful. Keep going. So we submit the speech. And the RNC people were like, oh, no, you have to change it. You have to change all the narratives.

This isn't what we want. And I'm like, I'm not changing the fucking speech. Sorry. And so we reach out to Susie Wiles. And I'm like, look, I'm not going to speak because I'm not changing my speech. You guys asked me to speak. I have to speak the truth. She goes, Sean, I don't care what you I have to speak the truth. She goes, Sean,

I don't care what you do. Say whatever you want. She goes, do me a favor. Can you call DJT and just tell them? So I call them up and I say, look, they want me to change my speech. I'm not going to do that. And he says, I haven't even seen your speech, Sean. He goes, this week said exact words, say whatever the fuck you want. I'm fine with it. And so I was only supposed to speak for about like 15 minutes. It ended up being like a 30 minute deal. Um, but it was pretty funny. And, and, uh, it was funny because in that whole, uh, uh, speech, when we first started out and I said, he's one tough SOB, obviously those are my initials. So I tried to, I threw that in there. That wasn't on the teleprompter and i got

criticized for saying that i'm like the guy just took a fucking bullet to the ear two days before that and he's back up like nothing happened like i don't care whether you like him you don't like him i mean that's some mental and physical toughness uh yeah and you know you get criticized you get criticized for that but it was it was a whole funny experience. And it just showed you how, you know, the, the far left or the far right in this case, the far right didn't want a truthful narrative. Wait, that takes me back to what you were saying about Kamala coming to the Teamsters and only getting through four, four questions. Was she answering them the way we saw her answer on the campaign trail with just like a bunch of nothingness, this big air sandwich, or was she more substantive? No, I mean, she, she was, uh, didn't answer the questions at all with

any type of real, uh, substance. Um, you know, it was funny when she was answering the questions and, and, you know, I check a few of the boxes, ADD, ADHD, OCD, whatever. And I just remember saying this, this lady's not even answering this question. Maybe it's my OCD kicking in or ADHD. I don't know what it was. But I started thinking about Little League and saying, if I swung the bat a little harder, maybe I would have hit the fence. I mean, it was just the answers. The answers were crazy.

And it was telling at that point in time that she had a sense of entitlement to the position, not that she wanted to work at it. Isn't it crazy? Like the narrative right now in the wake of all these books is, you know, there was a quote from an unsourced. They didn't reveal who said it, but Democrat operatives saying that Joe Biden F'd us. He F'd us out of the presidency. He F'd the American public out of a vote because he left her so little runway, only 107 days. And this is the narrative that the left is going with, which is just, to me, such a blatant lie. She didn't have it. More time wouldn't have worked to her benefit. It would have sunk her even sooner and probably by a bigger margin. That's my take. So the the eyes on mafia is blaming Joe Biden for not getting out of the race sooner. Yes. Saying that's what sunk Kamala. Right. So here's the narrative that we heard. And again,

this is secondhand information. You know, when President Biden was running, he was running as a transitional president. So the story that we got, and again, a secondhand story, but again, with all these books coming out, so I think it's safe to say that this is probably accurate, that the secondhand story went that they had a meeting two years into, when I say they, his close cabinet team had a meeting with President Biden, said, you know, two years into it, this is a great time to say that you're not going to be running again. You're a transitional president. You've done some good things, passed some good legislation. Now it's time to step out. And I heard, and this was told to us by some reliable sources, that everybody was in favor of him making that announcement, but one person. And that one person wasn't part of the cabinet or elected. It was his wife,

Dr. Jill Biden. So if that's true, you know, you're blaming the wrong people. I mean, look, you know, when I'm 78 years old, hopefully I'll still be alive and enjoying retirement and grandchildren, not trying to get propped up and be made a fool of. And anybody that thought that he should have ran for another term and or was qualified to do it, you need to blame yourselves, not blame Joe Biden. Yeah, you're right. And she's absolutely the chief villain. I mean, I cannot imagine doing that to my husband or him doing that to me. It's horrifying. All right. Talk to me about why Trump is resonating with the working class of America in a way Republicans haven't in a long time. I know the Teamsters supported Reagan. Right. They supported George H.W. Bush. But it's been a long, dry spell between Trump and the Teamsters or Republicans and the Teamsters for a good reason. So what's changing right now that's connecting so much with your members? Well, I think what's important is to look back over the last 20 years. The Democrats controlled 16 out of the last 20 years, and we didn't get anything done. I mean, you look at the Obama

administration. During the Obama administration, you had a full Democratic House, Senate, and president. Our biggest objective was to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easy to organize, contract neutrality, no retribution or retaliation for joining the union. And remember, people forget all these bad trade deals that were done under the Clinton administration have come to surface because of the Trump administration. And we are finally realizing that we lost a lot of jobs. We lost a lot of manufacturing. We lost a lot of goods and services that were produced in this country.

So I think that's part of the reason why there's a gravitation towards a Trump. Plus, look, I think, and you look at the narrative from the Chuck Schumers of the world in the 90s, and you look at the Hillary Clinton 2008 narrative on immigration, it's all in line with what President Trump is doing right now. So it's not that the American people or the American worker has changed their morals and their beliefs. We've remained constant. It's the Democratic Party who has flipped the script and embraced billionaires, have embraced technology, and embraced everything that they once hated. And now they're criticizing tariffs and things that may be able to bring good American jobs back here. I think that's one of the reasons why. And, you know, President Trump, you know, do I agree with everything he does? Absolutely not. But do I agree what he's been doing?

I mean, look, I'll tell you this. For the Teamsters Union, whenever there's a decision made on labor or how potentially this could benefit or hurt organized labor. He calls us. They call the Teamsters Union. And we've had frank discussions on certain things. And that's what it's about, having a dialogue. And it's great. I mean, look, the most recent thing is this taxing and tariffing these motion picture companies that are taking jobs out of the United States and going to Europe and Paris

and masquerading Paris as New York City. Those people should be paying or those companies should be paying a tax for that. And he called me up and he said, look, Sean, I want to do this. Do you mind working with John Voight and some other folks in Hollywood? Because we represent a vast number of members that work in Hollywood, Teamster members. And I said, absolutely not. He goes, push as hard as you can. I want to make this happen. So how do you criticize someone that is calling you up saying, hey, I want to bring American jobs back here. Please do me a favor, push as hard as you can. We'll work together on this. Now, there's some other unions that may be upset, federal employees, where there's been significant layoffs. And that's, you know, layoffs are tough and I get that. But the reality is for the teens perspective, when, you know,

our members are fighting to protect jobs and keep good American jobs in this country and the president is calling us up saying, you know, this is what we want to do. I think it's a pretty good start. It's more than we've gotten in the past. And like I said, the Democrats were in charge for 16 out of the last 20 years. Well, I got to show you, this is how you criticize it. So Robert De Niro, who's got a severe case of the TDS, is in confluence right now, as all of the muckety-mucks are. And he's very unhappy about what Trump is doing to try to keep filmmaking, American filmmaking, in America by slapping tariffs on foreign-made films so that he can basically try to force people to make them domestically again

for the American audience that they're meant to serve. And here's what De Niro said on Tuesday. America's Philistine president has had himself appointed head of one of our premier cultural institutions. He has cut funding and support to the arts, humanities, and education. And now he has announced a 100% tariff on films produced outside the U.S. Let that sink in for a minute. You can't put a price on creativity, but apparently you can put a tariff on it of course this is unacceptable all these attacks are unacceptable and this isn't just an american problem it's a global one what do you make of that

well it's a global problem because it's the greediness of these studios and some of these actors that you, make a lot more money overseas than they would here. But I look at, I look at the film industry in the United States and my father worked in the film industry in Boston. He was a transportation coordinator for the team station. And so I know a little bit about it. I look at the film industry as we have some of the most creative people in the world, in the United States that have been making movies for hundreds of years. And I look at the film industry in America as like major league baseball is America's sport. You can't put the Boston Red Sox in Great

Britain and call them the Boston Red Sox, right? So, you know, people should look at filmmaking as the same as they would look at American sport. We are at the forefront. We have a great opportunity to create hundreds upon thousands of jobs. And the film industry not only creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, there's also a residual benefit or indirect benefit from all the goods and services, supplies, restaurants, hotels within the United States and employ millions of people. So that's the thought process. I mean, Robert De Niro, I mean, I've seen some of his antics. I was a big fan of his, but I'm a big fan of keeping American people working. And again, American films are right up there with American baseball. It's American sport. How long has it been since Robert De Niro knew what it was to be working class and to understand what it was like to worry

about where your next paycheck's coming from, how you're going to pay the mortgage at the end of the month. You know, he's not thinking about your guys at all, right? He's talking about how Donald Trump's a Philistine, meaning he doesn't understand modern culture and, you know, cultural and the culture and the arts, the way Robert De Niro does, you see? Well, I think it's a great example of, hooray for me, fuck everybody else. Because if you look at average Hollywood actors, and we supported SAG, Screen Actors Guild, on their strike, there's only 4% or 5% of actors making the Robert De Niro, that type of money.

Most people that film a movie, you know, you give 35% to your agent, to, you know, whatever other, uh, pay off your PR and everything else. Right. So at the end of the day, you know, these folks, they make a 16 week movie. The average person that's an actor or an actress makes a movie 16 weeks. They're making the minimal and they're unemployed in 16 weeks. So it's easy for him to say, you know, or to get on, you know, to get on his soapbox and pontificate about creativity and everything else. The guy's worth 200 billion, $200 million. And you got some poor stiff that's actually very talented trying to make a living, grind

out a living in LA or New York. I mean, you know, again, talk about not being in touch. And I guarantee you, if it came to Robert De Niro working behind a strike to make some money, there'd be clear choice he would cross that picket line because he's actually crossing a picket line right now by going overseas and doing American film work where it should be done in America, not overseas. Yeah. The nerve of him saying it from Cannes, France, of all places, my God. You know, Trump has been so good about trying to pressure American companies into bringing business back here. And there's no better example of that in the news recently than Apple. It's really kind of an outrage. I mean, literally almost everybody has one of these devices, right? One of these Apple phones. They're by far the dominant product that we use for our phones. It's an American company. It was born in America. It

was invented by an American and they make all of the phones over in China and now India. They don't make any of them here. Those could be actual well-paying jobs for real live Americans. I mean, talk about a living wage. It could be a great wage. They don't want to pay it because they can buy making it labor for cheap in China, in India. So Trump let it slip this week that he had a tense phone call. He's over in the Middle East right now. He was in Qatar and he kind of went off on a side about a phone call he just had with Tim Cook, the CEO. Take a listen to this. As you know, it's coming in. And I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday.

I said to him, Tim, you're my friend. I treated you very good. You're coming in with $500 billion. But now I hear you're building all over India. Tim, I said, Tim, look, we've treated you really good. We put up with all the plants that you built in China for years. Now you got to build us. We're not interested in you building in India.

India can take care of themselves. And then he said Apple is going to be upping their production in the United States, though he didn't provide further details. How do you feel about it? Well, I think I think he's spot on as far as American companies doing work overseas. You can create these jobs and infrastructure in the United States. And, you know, I think the problem is, you know, you get back to the corporate greed and the wage disparity between, you know, the CEOs and the people that are actually providing the labor in the United States. Although it's probably,

it's much cheaper to go overseas and do it. I don't think it's that cheap. It should be viewed as being cheaper. I think bring those jobs back here, take a little bit more off your bottom line and give it to your workers. And I think it'll be fine. I mean, that's what we're supposed to be. CEOs shouldn't be making 2000 times more than an American worker, especially when the American worker is doing all the work. So I think it's a great narrative. And even the company. Yeah. And Apple's one of the most successful companies in world history. I wonder what the difference would be if they paid Americans a real living wage versus giving a bunch of Chinese and Indians some not great wage. Like, okay, they probably have a smaller profit margin, but you'd be giving real jobs to your fellow countrymen. Right. The profit margin would shrink. There's no doubt

about that, but you'd actually be providing opportunity for people in this country, opportunity to have, you know, nice homes, good educations for their children. What's wrong with reinvesting in the American people, even if, you know, cost you a little bit more in a profit. And, you know, look, you know, I think the one thing is, and Trump was criticized saying he was beholden to Wall Street while he was running. Clearly, he hasn't given two shits about Wall Street right now because of, you know, he's announced these tariffs. He's announced a lot of things that have shook Wall Street. And it's a good thing. I mean, I talk about it all the time. I'm like, I care about Main Street before Wall Street any day of the week. And it's a good thing. I mean, I talk about it all the time. I'm like, I care about Main Street before Wall Street any day of the week.

And that's where people should be focused in these corporations that American-based but provide their labor in a third world nation. That's what they should be focused on as well. Main Street, not Wall Street. The guys from the All In podcast, two of the so-called besties, I don't know if you've ever seen it,

but they're great. They're tech guys. They've made it all big in tech out in Silicon Valley. And two of them were on the show about a week ago. And they, we, we got into a debate about illegal immigration. And, um, they were saying, realistically, Trump is not going to be able to get out these 10 to 20 million illegals. He's just not going to be able to do it. And the economy would collapse. They argued if he did it, that we're so dependent on these illegals doing, you know, the line, the jobs Americans will not do that we can't realistically ship them off. And I was saying, well, maybe you're right, because he's not imposing the E-Verify system, which, you know, many have wanted him to do for a long time, which would really kind of make it impossible for employers to hire illegals.

So maybe Trump at some level knows there would be economic ruin at some level if we shipped all of them out, because that would be a real tool to get them to leave. Do you accept this, Sean? Because I was saying, I don't accept that the economy will collapse. I believe these employers would be forced to turn to Americans and pay them the wages they demand to do these jobs. Yeah, there's no doubt we have an abundance of people available for work in this country. We've got the brightest and best. And this is just an excuse by corporate American corporate greed on why they want to pay people less because they, you know, the reality of it is there's plenty of people that need good

paying jobs. There's plenty of people that need good paying jobs. There's plenty of Americans in this country that could do a lot of this work. So I don't, I don't buy that bullshit at all. And let me ask you something. Are they, are they putting, are they putting ads in the Mexican paper to having these people come over here and say, Hey, we got these jobs. No, they're actually trafficking people over here to do these jobs so they can expand their profits on their balance sheet.

There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, those corporations should be fined. Like you said, they should be humiliated. And if someone doesn't act accordingly, they should be shamed. Exactly. There's a law of natural consequences that the public can unleash way better than any sort of white collar command center can. I know that you guys, you work at UPS, you're big at UPS, and you've been in a dispute with Amazon for quite some time, the Teamsters Union, right? You're doing the truck. So what's going on with Amazon? Because

I'm interested in their boss and his fiance too. Well, that guy, I mean, clearly he's gone on a little supplemental program. You know, he looked like,atsy Weber, and now all of a sudden he's trying to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. No, but the reality of it, look, I refer to Amazon as a white-collar crime syndicate. The way they treat their people, their employees, which they don't, you know, they have 150% turnover ratio. They focus on distressed communities to build their fulfillment centers. And they hide behind a third-party leasing arrangement with their drivers called a DSP model where they – you know, they're not a W-2 employer, 1099, these delivery drivers. Conversely, UPS is our largest employer. We have negotiated a $30 billion deal when we first came into office on behalf of 340,000 part-time and full-time members at UPS, where they get high wages, they get the best benefits,

and they get pension for doing the same exact work. So Amazon is clearly – Jeff Bezos' attitude, and I'll tell you this, it's very smug. He doesn't respect the people that work for him. He exploits distressed communities. And he thinks that this should be the United States of Amazon, not the United States of America. And I love the fact when he stepped on his dicks, excuse my language, and he wanted to put what the tariffs would cost per piece. And I took it one step further. And I said, why don't you put what your profits reflect on every single package by exploiting the DSP model, third party leasing arrangement, the 1099 wage scam you have going on. I would love to see that on your packages. And, you know, he doubled down and, you know,

typical, you know, hit. Now he's hiding. Didn't didn't comment on on one of the dumbest things he's ever said. Yeah. Now he's they've reportedly reversed it because they had a phone call from Trump saying, what are you doing? Or somebody talked to Trump. What are you doing? You know, his yacht has a yacht. Bezos's yacht has its own yacht to carry all the toys for the big yacht. And it's reportedly where Lauren Sanchez goes off to the other yacht with her girlfriends who don't make the main dance on the main yacht. Like what I've heard, this is not, not, not my independent reporting, but what I've been told is that she has her girlfriends, like the Kardashian types who ride along on the second yacht, the yachts yacht. And that's how she goes over and parties with them because he's got more

like the dignitary types on his yacht. But then her yacht is the one that carries the helicopter for his yacht. And this is the man who's refusing to pay this fair wage to do the right thing by the drivers who are really that bread and butter of the Amazon product. And look, it's not that I begrudge him his success, but I just think he's an American. We made him super rich. And like, why? What's the point at this point? Does the second yacht need its own yacht? Like, what's the point at this point? So that's a clear example of, you know, his wife or fiance. Is it his wife now or fiance? She's about to be. Just think about this. Your better half, your significant other, buys you a separate yacht because he's embarrassed by your friends who he doesn't want to call mingling with the dignitaries. I mean, that should send a signal up right away. I mean, is he worried about like another version of a diddy party or something? I don't know. Yeah, I don't know, but it's, they definitely, their yacht definitely has a yacht. And, um, I have heard stories about her going, her friends being relegated to the yacht too. What does that tell you? Like I stand by my friends. I grew up in a

neighborhood and I, my friends come from, I always tell people, my friends are cops, robbers, and clergy. Okay. And whether they're good, they're bad or indifferent, they're still my friends. I grew up with them. Loyalty. I mean, what does that tell you about someone if they're not standing up for their friends because they might not be good enough and not come from the same class? Just think about how he looks at his workers who go to work every single day for him to make them the success.

You think he's looking at them any differently than he's looking at his wife's friends where he exiled him to Gilligan's Island while he's, you know, somewhere else. Yeah. Well, I'd love to get to the bottom of whether that's true and why exactly he's doing it. But I do know his yacht has a yacht. No, his yacht definitely does. Yeah. And it carries his helicopter because he can't be bothered to actually just like take the dinghy out to the yacht. That's for losers who have to do that. His soon-to-be wife is being honored at the Cannes Film Festival. This is just a little news of the day. She's going to receive the Global Gift Women Empowerment Award for her commitment

to climate justice with the Bezos Earth Fund and social justice with This Is About Humanity, an organization dedicated to reuniting families separated at the U S Mexico border. So they're honoring her to get her, I guess, to the con film festival. I get a better, bad idea. Catchy phrase, right? Have her go work. If she, if she's so concerned about social justice, have her go work in one of her husband's facilities and see the exploitation of American workers, see the social injustices that are happening in that workplace every day. And then maybe she can take credit for an award that she clearly is not – she clearly shouldn't be getting. It's a great idea. Let me ask you about this because I grew up in a middle-class family.

And now I have money and I'm living in a sort of fancy community. And I look around and everybody here, like they want their kids to get an internship with the U S Senate or like with some, with JP Morgan or something like that. Right. That's what they want. Even in high school, even in high school, Sean, I don't want that. My, my oldest, who's really the only one who can work. He was a bus boy last summer, which I loved. And my daughter's going to be a bus girl this summer. But I really, I was talking to my husband about this. Like, what do you think, what's the Sean O'Brien plan for actually making sure, you know, kids like ours learn what they need to learn in the summers? Like, I'd love to see him

go be with the Teamsters for a summer. Like what would be the Sean O'Brien perfect summer education program for four years? Like what would you have the kids doing? Oh, I had my youngest. I had my youngest. He's a sophomore at Suffolk University, plays hockey. And, you know, I have two kids, one's 24 and one's 21. Great kids. But again, like you, I grew up, I didn't grow up upper middle class or middle class. We were just beneath it. But we always want more for our kids, so we work that much harder, provide more for them. But one thing that they needed to understand that there's a work ethic. No one gives you anything.

No one gives you a home. No one gives you spending money. You've got to go out and earn it. So my oldest is a plumber. He's in the plumber's union. He finished his apprenticeship program. He's 24 years old. And then I got my youngest who I always say, like, he's thinks he's a Kardashian. You know, he wants Lululemon. He's a hockey player, typical hockey player, you know, wants to do a very enormous, but, oh yeah, he's a big ass and a big attitude to go with it. And, but, you know, my point is I made him work in the union at a cement company, a ready mix company.

Just, I want to, this is where you come from. You know, if you want to do better in life, get an education, not that you're going to do better, but if you want an easier job that's less taxing on your body, you got to get to know the people that gave you the ability to enjoy your life that you have right now, these dues-paying members. And so I think, look, hard labor is great for kids in college. Look, we've got tremendous amount of jobs throughout the United States where when I started out, I got a full scholarship to play football. The summer before I went to play, I was in the union. I was throwing rubbish on the back of a truck in the city of Boston. And I learned a good work ethic, but I was around people that I grew up around the dinner table with, hardworking people that were out there providing opportunity for their family. And there's nothing wrong with going to work every single day, providing that

opportunity. But you can't forget where you come from. So your children busing tables, they're going to learn to respect people. They're going to learn to respect the people they work with. And hopefully when they rise up through the ranks and become successful and they're getting waited on, that they'll take into consideration the trials and tribulations they went through. Yes. And obviously embrace and respect the people that are serving them. There's no better people in this world than people that are providing services, whether it's in restaurants or whatever it is. And I got to tell you, I've always told my kids, you always respect the people that are serving you in restaurants because they are trying to make ends meet. Some of those folks are working three and four jobs. But to your point, you want

your son to go to work? Let us know. If you live in Connecticut, we'll put them on the back of a rubbish truck. We'll put them in a liquor distributor. Yes. Whatever you want. And by the way, they'll get two educations because, you know, it's funny. My son's like, Dad, does everybody hate their wives? I'm like, no, not really. But, you know, it's just I go, it's like a locker room. People say a lot of shit that they really wouldn't have the balls to say in front of their significant others. So just let it go. It's just, it's just workplace jargon. I think our son would love that because he, the biggest thing he learned about being a bus boy last summer was you get covered in quote garbage juice, which is not a pleasant experience, but, but it's one from which one learns. I've got to ask you about this. You're the perfect person to ask about this. Cause we're talking about these enormously privileged people who don't care. They, they lost touch with where they came from and how important it is not to do that. Please let me play for you this Michelle Obama soundbite and get you to react. It's driving me insane. He's projecting that if you win, which I thought he could and should, he would be somebody

that I would want as my president. It was all about, this is going to, you know, our kids are little. We're going to have to move. How do you raise kids in the White House? It's dangerous as the first Black potential president. We knew there would be death threats. There were just all the, how would we afford it? Because it's expensive to live in the White House. Many people don't know.

I mean, much is not covered. You're paying for every food, every bit of food that you eat. You're not paying for housing and the staff in it, but everything, even travel. If you're not traveling with the president, if your kids are coming on a Bright Star, which is the first lady's plane, we had to pay for their travel to be on the plane. It is an expensive proposition and you're running for two years and not earning an income. Single tier? What do you make of it? Yeah. I mean, I make, that's what every single parent and family does. They pay for their own food. They pay for their housing. They pay for their travel for vacation i mean are you shitting me

isn't it unbelievable they these people could just get out of touch right like the obamas now they have hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars by this point they and that happens we don't begrudge people their success in america but when you lose touch with how real people live and especially if you're in power, it's dangerous. I'll give you the last word, my friend. Well, you know, it's funny. I mean, talk about security at the White House. You can't ask for better security than having your kids grow up in the White House. I mean, really? Yeah, I know. It's just crazy. But look, the reality of this world is, you know, I think we've got a great opportunity right now to reset the American culture, create opportunity for American

workers, and create the ability to have respectful dialogue without all this hatred and venom. And all these people that are spewing all this bullshit, whether you're from the far left or the far right, need to take a step back and stop being an individual and do what's best for this country. Right on. It's a real pleasure to meet you. Thank you so much for being here. Well, I appreciate you. I'm a huge fan and I'm a subscriber as well. Oh, you're the best. All right. Well, I'm going to be shipping my son off to you soon. So I'm glad we bonded. This was not the purpose of the visit, but I'm pleased as punch to know you. Come back soon.

All the best, Sean O'Brien. Uncle Sean will take care of him. Okay, good, good. And I think you're an Irish Catholic just like me, so we got to get those values in. We got to get them in young. See you soon, Sean. All the best.

We'll be right back with The Real Cure Politics, guys. These days, it feels like nothing surprises us anymore, but not in a good way. The headlines are heavy. The future feels uncertain, and so much is out of our control. But one thing you can take control of right now is your family's financial future with life insurance through SelectQuote. Whether you need $500,000 or $50 million in

coverage, SelectQuote makes it easy to find the right policy for your unique needs. They have helped over 2 million people find more than $700 billion in coverage since 1985. And they do it fast, often in as little as 15 minutes. Other life insurance brokers might push generic, overpriced plans. But select quotes licensed agents work for you, not for the insurance companies. Even if you have a pre-existing condition like high blood pressure or diabetes, select quote partners with carriers who can still offer coverage. And if you're healthy, you could get same-day coverage with no medical exam required.

So don't wait for another what if. Consider taking a step to secure your peace of mind. Get the right life insurance for you, for less, at SelectQuote.com slash Megan. That's SelectQuote.com slash Megan. Select Select quote. They shop, you save. We're getting to the news now with our friends from the Real Clear Politics podcast. Tom Bevin, who is co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics. Carl Cannon, who is the Washington Bureau chief for Real Clear. And Andrew Walworth, the chief content officer for Real Clear Politics. They're also on Sirius XM. Guys, welcome back. Great to have you. Thanks. Good to be with you.

Okay. So what's happening right now in Washington is a big and important arguing argument at the U.S. Supreme Court. And it's, you know, under undergirding the argument is whether Trump has the right to end birthright citizenship. But it's not really what's coming up today. What's really being argued is, can federal district courts issue nationwide injunctions as opposed to an injunction that just affects the litigants in front of them or perhaps even the people who are in the jurisdiction of said federal district court, but not something that would stop a presidential executive order or a congressional law

from proceeding coast to coast. Is that too much power that was never envisioned or intended for federal district court judges? So I've been on the air for most of this time, so I haven't been following what's happened since then. But what I'm hearing is that there's a shot, which I think is actually quite good news for Donald Trump, that there's a shot of stopping the nationwide injunction thing would be big. If Trump can get five justices to say that, he can restart his agenda, which has been held up by these nationwide injunctions. I'll play you a couple of soundbites and just listen to, I'll just frame the basic debate. You're going to hear in some of these soundbites them discussing rule 23, which governs when a class action can be filed. And what Trump's lawyer is arguing is basically that, his name is John Sauer. You'll hear him in these soundbites. He has like a scratchy voice. Um, he's trying to say on behalf of Trump, if you're going to get a nationwide

injunction, you have to file a class action. You have to say, I'm here to represent everybody, everybody who's in this affected class of like people who no longer will have birthright citizenship. And then only the U S Supreme court would be able to issue such an injunction for you. And the other side is saying, no, there's nothing wrong with nationwide injunctions. And at best, at best, you could say maybe they could only be limited, used in certain small, limited circumstances. So you hear Rule 23, they're talking about class actions. Let's take a listen to a little bit of how here in this one, Sonia Sotomayor, who might be the dumbest one on, I don't know. I'm sorry, but she's like, it's tight. But I think, I think she's my number one favorite for

dumbest. She's questioning Sauer, that's Trump's guy, Solicitor General. And you'll hear she tries to interrupt him, and John Roberts, the chief justice, isn't happy. Listen. Both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally from violating that holding, those holdings by this court. We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case. Only a class, only by a class. Can I hear the rest of his answer? A Rule 23 class action. And then the more fundamental point as to all those Supreme Court decisions you referred to.

So what do we do temporarily? Temporarily, the court may issue, the lower courts may issue injunctions that remediate the injuries to the plaintiffs that appear before them. He's saying issue injunctions that apply only to the litigants in front of you. But that's a good sign for Trump that John Roberts wanted to hear him out because he's kind of wishy-washy, as people know. And what Jonathan Turley tweeted out this morning is that from what he heard, Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh seem strongly in favor of the administration. Roberts also made repeated points that seem to support some of the arguments of the administration, though it was not clear how he would vote. On the left, you've got, of course, Kagan and Sotomayor and Katonji Brown Jackson.

And the fight is over Gorsuch and Barrett, two Trump-appointed judges. Gorsuch has previously expressed criticism of universal injunctions, but as probing questions on both sides, Barrett seemed more accommodating in seeking a way to uphold universal injunctions. In other words, Turley writes, this could be a nail-biter. But a nail-biter, again, I think for Trump is maybe better, Tom, than Trump. Well, maybe not Trump himself, but his top legal advisors would have expected. I agree with that. And, you know, Clarence Thomas had said during these hearings that the country got along just fine without nationwide injunctions until 1960. These are a relatively new phenomenon.

And they've happened a lot more since Trump took office in 2016, 2017. And I think some of the numbers on that is, I think something like 75% of the national injunctions have been against Donald Trump just in the last 10 years. So this is a problem that has cropped up recently that is now being dealt with. And I agree with you. I think the way this has gone so far, it looks decent for Trump, but it probably is going to be pretty close. Here's that sound in SOP 31 from Justice Thomas. General, when were the first universal injunctions used? We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii,

which is that Wurtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong. So when the court has considered it and addressed this, it has consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions? That's exactly correct. And in fact, those were very rare, even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007 in our cert in summers against our island

institute. We pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims. What do you make of it, Carl Cannon? Because even though I don't like what's happening to the Trump agenda, I've got to be honest, I really loved that nationwide injunction stopping Joe Biden's revisions of Title IX and sat on this set and cheered it. However, that was a different story. We didn't have these ubiquitous courts issuing them to stop an entire presidential agenda. So what are your thoughts, Carl? Well, Elena Kagan said an interesting thing. I was listening to the oral arguments. You can't watch it, but you can listen right on C-SPAN. Yeah. And she she said, well, she said, well, this executive order,

and she's talking about Trump rescinding birthright citizenship. She said, it's just wrong. It's unconstitutional. She sort of said it like she thought the other justices would agree with it. That's an obvious thing. And then she said, so what's our remedy? So what she's trying to do is remind the judges, is to remind her colleagues, probably the two you mentioned, Megan, this is not just about, it's not a law school exercise. It's just not about all these, you know, democratic judges around the country doing various things to thwart Trump. It's about this case, birthright citizenship, and what else can the court, what else can these courts do, but just issue an injunction. So she was trying to get them back on what she

thinks is a safer ground for the liberal bloc, which is this birthright citizen question and away from what we're talking about. They're definitely not going to go there. I mean, you know this as well as I do, Andrew, that the Supreme Court likes to decide things as narrowly as possible. And there's no way they're just going to like be like, oh, and also let's take on birthright citizenship while we're all here. Yeah, I think I think what's interesting about this to me is also the fact that this is really very important for the progressives, because this is sort of one of the last levers they have left is these courts. They have no control in the Hill. The party's in disarray. So they've really relied

on the courts to sort of do what they want. And as you pointed out, this is not just a Trump. Trump isn't the first president, I'll put it this way, who doesn't like these injunctions. So it's not just like this sort of, every executive doesn't like the fact that anybody messes with what they're trying to do, let alone sort of local courts. So it is being framed narrowly, as you say, about this sort of what seems like a procedural question. And it'll be interesting to see when they get to the substance of it, if they ever do get to the substance of it, how they rule. Because that's a constitutional case that I think would be a lot harder for the president to make. Oh, yeah. And that one will get there, too. That's that's going to wind its way up. I mean, these these cases are those cases

that will come back after they get litigated on the merits to the Supreme Court. But they have to get past this first thing about whether the injunctions that were issued in stopping Trump's executive order saying no more birthright citizenship can stand. So these are the cases that will put that substantive challenge in front of the Supreme Court at some point next year, probably, but they're not there yet. Okay, so that's an interesting point. I just want to, before we leave this, Tom, Andrew's not wrong. This is resistant is resistant 2.0. This is what the lawfare and how they've been doing it. I mean, through left wing judges who are they pick selectively, they file in exactly the jurisdictions they know they're going to do well in, like D.C. And if the nationwide injunction thing is lifted, that is a massive loss for the Democrats. 2.0 resistance.

Oh, absolutely. There's no question. I mean, and you made a really important point there, which is part of how this has gone is that they're shopping. They're judge shopping, right? The Democrats and the progressives, they go around and they find judges who they know are sympathetic to their cases. And so that's part of it.

And the argument is that the administration is making is, look, you know, these judges can only issue injunctions for the people who come before them. They can't make these blanket statements nationwide. And that would also curtail this effort that the way the Democrats have found to effectively use the courts to thwart Trump's agenda nationally. And so it is a very important case. It's going to be a very important ruling in that respect. I can't wait to find out what they think. And thankfully, since they're hearing it so late in the term, we won't have long to wait. You know, we will get this decision before they take off. Usually they go all of June and a couple of days into July if history's

any indication. OK, let's let's turn the page to the book that everybody's been talking about. I heard you guys talk about it on your show, which I love, by the way. I love the Real Clear Politics podcast. And it's this original sin book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios. And we reported yesterday, we didn't report, but repeated a report in Politico that the guys had hired a crisis PR agent to help them because, you know, the press for them has been absolutely terrible this week. I mean, it's just been an all out assault on them from everyone who's in the independent media or right of the independent media. Guys like you, us, everybody. I mean, you're not like right wing. You're independent because we all saw Biden's infirmity and we all discussed it for years, for years prior to when these guys are acknowledging it was an issue.

I mean, like we all it's not a cover up if half the country, all the country knew and half the press reported it. What really just needs to be examined is why did the other half not report it? Because half the this isn't like, you know cover-up, like Watergate style, where people didn't know that they were bugging the offices. Here, we knew, we knew, we knew. It's just such a weird thing to claim cover-up. Okay, but I believe Tapper's crisis PR person has gotten to him on maybe how to massage the message around his participation in the cover up or at least absolute lack of curiosity around the issue. And here's the new message in SOT6.

I think some of the criticism is fair, to be honest, of me. Certainly, I'm not going to speak for anybody else. But knowing then what I know now, I look back at my coverage during the Biden years, and I did cover some of these issues, but not enough. I look back on it with humility. Look, what we learned through our reporting is that starting in around 2019, 2020, there were two Bidens. There was a Biden that was perfectly workable, serviceable, seemed fine. And then there was a non-functioning one that couldn't come up with names of top aides

that would lose his train of thought to an alarming degree. And that non-functioning Biden reared his head increasingly over and over. It really seemed to exacerbate and get much worse in 2023, 2024. All right, Carl, does that get it done? I look back on my reporting with humility.

I thought that I was struck by that and remarked about it on our podcast. It's a nice start. But, you know, that's a clip from CNN. Megan, you said he's gotten tough press coverage, but he's gotten really lovely press coverage on CNN. They've been very respectful of Jake, very solicitous. You know, he's coming here on Tuesday. Oh, good. Yeah, listen, you know, you want to say better late than never, but that's probably not good enough either what this there are journalists shake tapper was one of them

who attacked other journalists who wrote about biden's mental state that's and and what i i think in the reckoning of this we we have to ask some questions and the the basic questions are twofold what why did the why did the hierarchy of the democratic party and this cabal of of white house is a's we're talking about dozens and dozens of people, maybe hundreds, think that this was OK to present the president as a person they knew that wasn't realistic? And the second thing is, and this is what you're getting to, Megan, why did the media go along with it? How did they rationalize so much of the media? How did they rationalize it to themselves? And what are they going to do better going forward?

The wall street journal wrote before that debate, um, a story about Joe Biden's diminished capacity was attacked from like the paper was attacked from the white podium by the white house press secretary. You remember this Megan? And we've talked about it on our on our show. What are they saying about that now? And they ought to be they ought to be required to answer this on the record. And, you know, the woman on CBS thing is that didn't even hit until was it April? It was April of twenty twenty four. Like very late in the game with all due respect to the Wall Street Journal. But it was like they were very late to the party. That's right. But at least, but it was before the debate. It was June. Right. It was June. And all these questions, but earlier in June, the debate was also in June. All these

questions afterwards, Kamala Harris was never asked even after president Biden pulled out of the race and wasn't run. She was never asked the question. We, the three of us would scratch our heads because the question you want to ask her is, um, madam vice president, are you really telling the American people that you saw something on June 27th that you had never seen before? And this was the kind, so this, this coverup existed, continued even after president Biden pulled out of the campaign. Well, and on that front, so, Andrew, what's your verdict? Because we've been kind of debating on this show all week. So given that, are we in favor of these books or no?

Because they're too stomach-turningly hypocritical. Well, I'll tell you one thing. There is one person, at least, who is very happy with this week's coverage, and that's the publisher of Jake Tapper's book, because this publicity has been great. This is the third book, I think, that's come out just in the last 30 days or so about this topic. And it's the one that's getting the most coverage. Part of that is because Jake Tapper wrote it, and he's so prominent and well-known. And because of this sort of strange, because he's on television, I think in part, there's a lot of focus on his personal coverage.

There's this great clip of him talking to Laura Trump on CNN where Laura Trump is. We have it, Andrew, let me show it. And then you pick it up on the back end. Yeah, here it is. Every time he comes on stage or they turn to him, I'm like, Joe, can you get it out? Let's get the words out, Joe. You kind of feel bad for him. How do you think it makes little kids with stutters feel when they see you make a comment like that? First and foremost, I had no idea that Joe Biden ever suffered from a stutter. I think what we see on stage with Joe Biden, Jake,

is very clearly a cognitive decline. That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable to watch somebody on stage search for questions. It's so amazing to me that... And try and figure out an answer. A cognitive decline. Well, when you're trying to tell me

that what I was suggesting was a stutter, I have no idea, Joe Biden. Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter. And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline. Go ahead, Andrew. Well, yeah, that's the clip that he can't live down, I think. So I like these books. I plan to read all of them. And Jake's comes out, I think, later this week. It hits Tuesday. Yeah, but I'm glad you're going to be talking to him because I do think he's got some explaining to do. I think it's a problem, too, if you step back from it.

And we're going to talk about this on our podcast. There's a problem for all those politicians who are very close to Biden during this period, the Democrats. I mean, if you're Pete Buttigieg and you're in the cabinet, how do you explain, you know, that you want to be president? This is a story that's going to sort of dog him. It's going to dog Kamala Harris. Not so much if you're a governor running from the outside. But I think this is going to be sort of a litmus test. I think that the presidential primaries are pretty nasty. And I think the Democrats are going to go after one

another on this very topic. And I think if you're inside the cabinet or close to the president, you might have some real answering to do. And people will use that against them. We've seen a cascade, Tom, of Democrats saying yesterday, especially Chuck Schumer, I'm moving forward, moving forward. That was how he tried to handle this. These tough questions. There have been at least two other Democrats on camera. Somebody did a mashup of them online, moving forward, not looking backward. This is apparently a strategy they think is going to work. And then here was Colorado Democrat Senator Michael Bennett on the own the Mark Halperin NextUp podcast, which is part of our MK Media Network in a position of not being able to wage a vigorous campaign against Donald Trump. And there's no way you can beat Donald Trump unless you can wage a

vigorous campaign. And he couldn't do it. Why wouldn't you say mental decline? Did you not see that publicly? I didn't see. Well, look, when the first thing that I really saw other than one visit to the White House on an immigration matter, there was about, I think, six weeks before this was when I saw his debate with Donald Trump. And I think I was the first Democrat to publicly say on on network television that we were going to lose in a Lance fight if he stayed at the top of the ticket. But let me ask you about that, because that's a common answer. He once addressed a dead congresswoman at an event meant to honor her as if she were Jackie. He was sequestered from the media, talked to the media far less often, even in 2020, including 2024. I don't think you needed to see anything secret or private or that debate to see mental decline. Do you not agree with that? Well, I think that, again, I have not made

a personal assessment. Oh, Tom. Oh, secondhand embarrassment. I mean, there are just so many, so many things about this that require more investigation. And I hope you play that clip for Jake Tapper and have him respond to it. And there were other instances. Look, when the her report came out, you know, Democrats and folks in the media, they had people on to rebut that that Wall Street Journal piece that you talked about, did anyone have those wall street journal reporters on their shows or did they just have the surrogates for Biden come on to say, Oh, this is, you know, wave, wave it away. And remember, I mean, this is, you mentioned this, the public knew early on and the polling on this was pretty, pretty clear that, that people were concerned about his age and his mental decline. We all knew it. And so, and remember up until if that debate had not happened or if Joe Biden had not had a bad debate that night, this whole charade would have continued

all the way through election day. I mean, Democrats, you know, the staffers would have kept lying. The media would have kept reporting it and saying, oh, he's fine. But we know now that he wasn't fine for a long time. And Oh, by the way, he stayed in the job as president of the United States for six more months. And they're trying to argue now that, well, he was just, you know, yeah, he had some mental decline, but, but he was really effective at doing the job. And I mentioned this the other day. I mean, that just is total BS. There's no way that you can cordon off and say, well, you know, he, he had these mental decline issues, but you know, he was on top of the job when he was doing, you know, taking 3 a.m. phone calls on matters of

national security. I mean, just it doesn't even pass the smell test. So, look, there's a lot that and I know it's fine for Jake Tapper to say he's been humbled and he's going to approach this with humility. But I just have no confidence that him or the media writ large would not do this exactly again or wouldn't, as I said, wouldn't have continued it had that debate not happened. There are now questions being raised about whether the antidotes in the book have been tested enough. And this is an interesting twist to the story for me, because what I sense as a possibility, I'll ask them about it when they're here on Tuesday, is perhaps in the zeal to now be the ones on the left to own the story, like

to try to be first on the left, at least. They're not, as we discussed, nowhere near first, writ large. Did they put things in the book that they should have tested more strenuously? And the reason I'm asking this is because this guy named Rufus Gifford, who's the finance chair he was for the Biden campaign, went on. Here's our friend Mark again. Mark Halpern's everywhere. Interviewing this guy, Rufus. And watch what happened. Were you at the famous George Clooney fundraiser? I was.

And I was one of the eight people in the room when this infamous moment happened. So do you think it's true that he didn't recognize George Clooney? No, is the answer to the question. And I mean, it's like an absurd thing. Hold on. I just want to clarify something. You were there and you were standing right there. You weren't over on the side of the room. And you can say without fear of any contradiction, and you remember clearly the president did not not know. He knew who George Clooney was. It was it's like not knowing someone who someone is in the photo line. You're introduced to them.

So you're saying, Mr. President George, this is your host, George Clooney and Julia Roberts. And he was you. You heard the person say that. Yeah, yeah. He's advanced guy. Yeah, it happens. So so so you're saying there was no opportunity for the president not to recognize. That's right.

I mean, so George might have thought he didn't know who he was. But I mean, it just that moment didn't exist. And what Rufus also said, you guys, was he he'd bet dollars to donuts that their source was George Clooney and that this this the implication was tires and look for secondary sources and get people to go on the record so they can go back and test these things. Right. And none of that wasn't done here. This book is mostly anonymous sources, Carl. Well, that's why you want for real history to have name sources. And then you want to talk to, you know, if you're doing a real history of this and not a quick book, and I'm not trying to criticize these guys. They're not really writing history. They're writing kind of the first draft of this revisionism. You talk to everybody in the room.

And I don't know if George Clinton was the source or not. But is this guy really trying to say that Biden's fine? Because that's not, I don't think people, I don't think that's sustainable. If you listen to him, he wasn't trying to say that Biden's fine because that's not, I don't think people, I don't think that's sustainable. If you listen to him, he wasn't trying to say that, but he was pointing out, you know, like that can't be the excuse if this story is wrong, right? Like that's, you have to get rid of a president because he didn't recognize a movie star. But I'm just saying like, if the, was the book tested, was it, like, was the book tested? Was it double sourced? Did they make sure in the zeal, again, to get this thing to print and to be the first and to be like the ones of

the left who are going to speak the truth, did they skip some important reportorial steps? I'll go with you to you on it, Andrew, because like this guy says he was there. And what the book says is Biden came in and, you know, how nice to see you. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. And then he kind of breezed up to George. Nice to see you. And somebody said, you know, George, and it's nice to see you. And they were like, George Clooney, you know, one of your hosts tonight. And then he was like, oh, George, how are you? So it was a very different story from the one we just heard from Rufus. Well, I would guess if there were eight people in the room, you'd have eight different stories. But let me just say one other thing. So what this guy is saying is that,

no, it cannot be a difference of opinion because what literally happened, you have to listen to a longer clip, was the president was arriving and his advance team, I don't know, I can't remember if he said it was his chief of staff or whoever was on the inside with George and Julia Roberts, like across the doorway. And the advanced man came in with the president and said, Mr. President, you know, George Clooney and Julia Roberts who were greeting him. He didn't have a chance to work a rope line and say, nice to see you. Nice to see you or make any,, that's what this guy Rufus is alleging. Yeah, and it sounds like a scene out of Veep, you know, like where there's always the aide who's like whispering in her ear saying, you know, the fact about whoever she's going to meet next. So I, look, I think it has the ring of truth to

it and he's, he's on the record. So you got to give him that. I mean, he's, so I don't know. I mean, who knows what really happened in the room? I haven't read the book, so I can't really comment on. I'm going to ask them. I'm going to ask them for sure. Can we go back to that stutter thing for a minute? Yeah. Do you remember this cropped up, you know, when he was in national office? I covered this guy back in the Senate. He spoke. He gave Fidel Castro-Lenk speech. I once had a lunch with him and he spoke for 35 minutes without even breathing. I never heard this stutter thing until recently.

And then it was sort of offered up as his excuse. And then, well, he would have a cold. They said in the debate he was still tired from an overseas trip that happened three weeks earlier. They just kept coming up with these new excuses. And I mean, to step back a minute from that George Clooney anecdote, what you expect from a press corps is to be more skeptical. And they weren't.

And so Tapper's blowing the whistle on that. And as you point out, he's blowing the whistle on himself, too. Maybe all these vignettes aren't perfect. And I would have liked to see it on the record sources. But let's take a step back. You had a president who was compromised and a political party that decided to hide that fact and a mainstream media that went along with it. That's the big story here. And I guess I'm glad Jake Tapper wrote this book.

And in the relative scheme of culpability, I give the media absolutely no pardon, none whatsoever. You're like Tom. That's what Tom's been saying. I know. This is one of the many reasons I love Tom, not to make any judgment about the other two parts of the podcast. Can we just say, though, I think Alex Thompson was a little better on his coverage than Tapper was. He was, but then he got up to the White House Correspondents' Dinner and said, we missed it. We missed the story, which is not true. But what I was going to say, Tom, is that

if you're assigning relative blame, yes, the media is right, but there's no question that the deepest, worst, most unforgivable sin was by the Biden aides and the Biden family members who actively worked to cover this up. Absolutely. I mean, there's just no question. And we don't have an understanding of exactly

who was running the country, how much Biden was in charge, how much auto pen was used, what was done in his name that he knew or didn't know. And that is a massive scandal. I mean, if you just take a step back and you look at the scope of this thing, I mean, this is the biggest scandal maybe in political history, certainly of the modern era. I mean, nothing even comes close in my mind. And the media was part of it. I mean, again, remember, you know, that fundraiser, George Clooney comes out and that was the whole cheap fakes thing, right? He's standing there on stage. He has no clue where he is. Barack Obama has to grab his arm and lead him off stage. And everybody, again, the entire country watches that and is horrified by it.

And the White House comes out and said, these are cheap fakes. This is, you know, this is a cheap fake. And that was dutifully reported by everyone in the media, including CNN. And so they don't get a pass in my book for any of that that happened. But it is a, there's a lot more that we need to know

about exactly what happened because I think this is just a huge scandal. Same. All right, let's move on to some other news. We have finally had an awakening on the left, similar to the awakening on the left we just discovered, and the press too, but I repeat myself, on how refugees may not be that desirable.

People flocking to America from other countries claiming that they must because their countries are war torn or they're endangered. We may not want them. It's very late in the game, but they finally discovered it because said people happen now to be white. So it's a no. So we're taking in what the administration is calling refugees from South Africa, white families, some, I think it's 59 of them, 49. And the left is upset. They're very, very upset that they haven't been vetted. This is the complaint. They haven't been vetted. Normally you have to run this by the UN. We haven't run it by the UN. They get here, they wave American flags. They were wearing American flag t-shirts. They all speak English. They get here, they wave American flags. They're wearing American

flag t-shirts. They all speak English. They had to go through like this screening process to make sure that they wanted to assimilate. Yes, yes, yes. And now we get, okay. Yeah. Okay. Now we get the left again, freaking out about it, upset because they're not pro-racial justice or social justice. Elon Musk tweeted out as follows, posted, I should say. The South African government just said whites are cowards who are fleeing racial justice, who are fleeing racial justice. But what exactly do they mean by racial justice? And indeed, this is what the South Africans had said. The South African president came out with the following comment. As South Africans, we are resilient. We don't run away from our problems. We must stay here and solve our problems. When you run away, you're a coward. And that's a real cowardly act, the running away.

Then they also, through their Congress, put out a statement that reads, in part, what the instigators of this falsehood who are fleeing South Africa seek is not safety, but impunity from transformation. They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality, and accountability for historic privilege. Historic privilege. They're taking their land away from them without paying them and just giving it to other people in South Africa who have the right skin color and with no remuneration. And so now you have people all over CNN saying we don't want them and The View, we don't want them. Because what? You tell me, what has changed in this calculation?

Would anybody like to take a shot? Well, I would just say that this is trolling of such a high caliber that you really have to give the administration credit. Because as you say, bait so hard and, you know, end up looking kind of silly in in in the view, I think, of a lot of Americans. So, yeah, it's I view it as high level trolling. I think it's very effective. And you've got to give the administration credit for for for understanding the politics of this in a way that the left just doesn't. Well, now they're upping the ante because their White House is threatening to pull out of the G20. Trump threatened he would not attend the G20 leaders meeting in Johannesburg unless the situation is taken care of. That summit is set to be held in November. The U.S. is set to host the summit next year. And the White House National Security Council on. The U.S. is set to host the summit next year. And the White House National Security Council on Wednesday ordered U.S. agencies and departments to suspend work

with the group of G20 conference. They're trying to, I mean, these are all tools that the left uses to try to punish Republicans who do things or other countries who don't do things the way they want it. So turnabout, fair play, Carl Cannon. I think that what Andy said is right and mild. I don't think it's silly. I think it's ugly, attacking these people. They let in about 50 people or so. That's how many white farmers are killed every year in their own houses in this campaign to terrorize them. And so they want to come here to be safe.

And you let in, in the previous administration, four or five million people who are economic refugees, but not refugees in the sense that the law envisions. And these people are. They're afraid for their own safety. And there are rallies. You can find them on YouTube, of South Africa and a political party calling to kill the Boers. That's what these Afrikaners are called.

And these are white people. Some woman was on MSNBC who used to work in the Bonn administration, said, yeah, they should go back where they came from to Germany. Well, of course, they didn't come from Germany. They came from Holland about 350 years ago. Most of the Afrikaners came to South Africa, you know, 10 generations ago or something calls for them every day at rallies to be murdered. And many of them are being murdered. And I just, I hope, I hope a prominent Democrat steps forward and sort of puts an end to this because it's, it's, it's disgusting and vile. Racism is always ugly, no matter who's doing it. Here's what's amazing. Okay. You get, you get a headline like this from this moronic person over at the website media. Um, and the headline she posts yesterday is white South African refugee

in quotes brought to us by Trump says, quote, Jews are untrustworthy and dangerous. Okay. Wait till she finds out how the Palestinians feel about Jews who were brought over here by President Biden in much greater numbers than 49 or 51. The numbers beat that in even just one year. And he wanted to bring more. He wanted to bring far more. There was just such political blowback. He couldn't. I don't remember her article about how they feel about Jews because now they want to vet the people, Tom. Now they're like we they have been vetted. We don't know if they're going to assimilate. They know they may not share our values. Should we talk about the men who came over from Muslim countries under President Obama? Do they share our values? Because I think most of them would put me in a burqa. Right. And some of the commentary on this has just been ridiculous. I mean, they were arguing, I think it was on CNN. I saw a clip the other day saying, you know, that this is not that.

Sure, there's violence against these Afrikaners, but, you know, it's not genocide. And so we should be able to tolerate a certain level of violence or something. It's ridiculous. And I think Carl was, you know, light about four or five million extra folks who were led to the country. I mean, I think he was just using refugees. Right. He was just referring to refugees. Right. I assume, Carl, because I mean, the illegals just is at least twice, probably. But we do. I mean, this is all this is all, you know, again, the public looks at this and says, wait a minute. You know, we let 10 million people in under the Biden administration. Borders were basically thrown wide open for people. They all claimed asylum that they were fleeing from some sort of political violence or whatever. We know that was not true. And it's just a massive abuse of the system. And yet here you have 50 folks who

literally are in danger and are offered, you know, to be given asylum and refugee status. And suddenly the Democrats are like, no, we can't be given asylum and refugee status. And suddenly the Democrats are like, no, we can't we can't do that. And it's all about race and white replacement and all this stuff. I mean, it's just it's it's ridiculous. And I think the public sees right through it. All right. Last but not least, is Trump going to have his plane from Qatar or isn't he? Anyone? Well, you know, how about this? This with boeing was in 2018 when he was president the first time megan i i guess let's go back to first principles how come this iconic american company can't produce one plane in seven years i know and how are they going to deliver 160

over to the middle east now under this new deal he just brokered. They can't even make the two we ordered. I look, I taking a plane, this plane as a gift is absurd, but I, I, I kind of get Trump's frustration. Where's the plane? Where's the new air force one. Trump's the only president in history that his plane that he was using before air force one stepped down from system down from that plane. It can't withstand a nuclear blast, which Air Force One is supposed to do. But, you know, I even heard the New York Times' The Daily podcast yesterday, Andrew, no fans of President Trump talking about how the Air Force One ride is like kind of alarmingly shuddery on takeoff and landing because the planes are 30 years old and they're, you know,

they're huge. They have, it probably takes a lot to make the plane able to resist, you know, a rocket propelled grenade and a nuclear bomb. But she was saying, you know, that even she had questions about like, is this okay? You know, on takeoff and landing on the thing. And I'm sure Trump 10 times that. And here's cutter with these magnificent, like fleet of planes, because they're used to flying around all these, you know, Arab dignitaries saying, hey, you can have this one. And Trump's like, yes, I just saved us 400 million bucks. Yeah, I think the question is what happens to the plane. Well, the way we've done this is the plane is being given to the Defense Department. It's not being given to Trump. That's what he says, Joe. Yeah. So it seems to me that with all the aid that we've given everyone in the world, taking a $400 million plane or whatever, sort of chump change.

Why not? I have no problem with that, personally. The question is then what happens to the plane after the president's term is up and the idea that it's going to a library that or maybe Ivanka and Jared get it. We haven't really heard. Well, God, he did say Trump did say it's gone, that he would not be using it. He clarified that on Monday, the library, which is kids. We don't know. That's what he says now. Right. Yeah. I think, you know, I would just assume that his his the next president get the use of that plane and then president after that until Boeing gets their act together, which looks like a long time. I don't like I don't know. I mean, I don't love it, but I also feel like it saved us four hundred million dollars.

You know, like, I don't know. Is it so bad if it's a gift to the United States, assuming that our defense department could make sure the thing is debugged, Tom? Like, is it so bad if it's a gift to our defense department? And I'm not totally sure I even care if it remains for the next president. I'm like, I'm not really 100% sure whether I even care about that. I just feel like Trump wants a better relationship with Qatar with or without this plane. Oh, absolutely. That's true. And the deals he made suggest that we are now going to have that sort of more tight relationship. But as to the plane, I mean, I'm with you. If it stays the property of the U.S. government and it can be used by future administrations, I have much less of a problem with it than I do if it was somehow transferred to his library or to him or his kids or whoever. But, you know, Hillary Clinton posted something on X the other day saying, you know, nobody gets, yeah, nobody gets $400 million

from Qatar without, you know, them wanting something for it. Be serious or something. And then people immediately posted that, you know, she had received, the Clinton Foundation had received, I think, $1 million, maybe even even four million in gifts while she was secretary of state. Yeah, she promised that she was going to, you know, have that looked at and it wasn't. And so it was kind of a self-owned on Clinton's part. Look, there's the people who are talking about this being, you know, grift and graft and corruption on Trump's part, I think, are are out over their skis a little bit. There's no indication that Donald Trump's going to do anything, you know, do Qatar's bidding because

of this. But again, you know, perception is reality. And there's an appearance of potential impropriety. But again, if it stays the property of the U.S. government. I think Trump will say he can stay the property of the U.S. government. I think Troublesake can stay the property of the U.S. government if a Republican takes over after him. There's no way he's going to he's going to let Gavin Newsom fly around in his Qatar gifted plane. Guys, it's a pleasure, as always. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having us. All right. We'll hear you guys later. OK, we're going to take a quick break here. We're going to come back with a little bit more on, yes, it's a daily theme. Michelle Obama's, I'm not kidding, latest rounds of fill in the blank. You guessed it. What does she do? Nothing but. Complain. Her latest round of complaints. Don't go away. I want to tell you

about Lean, created by a doctor and university researcher to match the goals of those GLP ones, but without the injections. Lean says the studied ingredients, their product are shown to lower blood sugar, radically reduce appetite and burn fat by converting it into energy. If you are struggling to lose weight, lean might be for you. Let me share a few testimonials so you can hear about their results. One gal named Patty, who's a customer, says it is the first weight loss product that's actually curbed her appetite. Two more testimonials emphasize how lean can be a lifesaver after years of weight loss struggles. It's even helped one customer increase their energy. So consider trying it for yourself if

it sounds right for you. You can get started with 20% off by using code MK20 at takelean.com. That's code MK20 at takelean.com. Again, takelean.com. Results vary. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA and the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease and is not a substitute for care from a healthcare provider. Tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you miss the April 15th deadline or still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Oh, joy. Every day you wait might make things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure

at levels we haven't seen in years. The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. Self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is completely free and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Megan. You may have missed the April 15th deadline, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help you before the IRS makes the next move. Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free.

That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. We're back to our daily segment of Michelle Obama's terrible, terrible life. Boo effing who? She went on a podcast called Diary of a CEO. It's kind of rings a bell like a founder kind of situation. And once again, I want you to know how awful it is to be married with children. There are many natural reasons why marriage, infertility, trying to have kids makes things difficult. It's like, I try to tell couples, of course it's hard. Just listen to what I said, right? Like it's probably, if you're having some issues in your marriage, it's not you. It's the process of marriage.

It's just all hard because guess what happens when it all works out, right? You know what you end up with? Babies. Little people with their own sense of everything. They mess you up. You love them dearly, but they're a hassle. What? There's something wrong with this person. She's seriously depressed. She has the most negative, dark outlook on life I've ever heard from a public figure, certainly one who's been given so much. Okay, her window into motherhood and having a child, the first thing she says, they mess you up. They mess you up. Maybe that's what happened to her. Maybe she was totally delightful before the two daughters came along. I don't know. She clearly is not enjoying motherhood and enjoying being in a marriage even less. It's not you. If things get hard, it's all hard. It's all hard.

This is so backward. I have news for you. I've been married twice and I get along with my ex-husband, but I can tell you that in my marriage to Doug, which is now in year 18, it's not hard at all. It's totally delightful. If you marry the right person, and by the way, my ex-husband is happily, happily married now too. If you marry the right person, it's not hard. You don't talk about it this way. It's not to say you never have a hard spot, but she talks about like the whole institution is a nightmare. Poor Michelle Obama. And then you have the babies and they mess you up. They F up a mother. I mean, this woman needs an intervention. She needs our help. And that's not all. She can't make fun of

herself. This has been obvious for years. She's incapable of laughing at her own expense, which is an absolutely dreadful quality in a person. Like, I don't think I could hire a person who works for me who doesn't have that ability. I think it's a sign of intelligence when you can. And it's definitely a sign that you have a strong id. Like, you know who you are and you cannot be easily moved off of that by detractors or anyone else. You have a strong moral core. She doesn't have it. That's why she's so thin skinned. That's why she hates America. That's why she's obsessed with us being a racist country. Hates America. That's my opinion. Seems clear based on her many statements. It makes perfect sense because she doesn't believe in herself. She's got absolutely no self-confidence. That's why she called her book Becoming. Nobody

with actual self-confidence would have to tell us how becoming she is. It's not what you do. And so here's a second soundbite. This one is from Amy Poehler's podcast just a couple days ago, May 13th, on the rules between Michelle and Barack and also brother Craig. What I like about you and what I feel is your family is like teasing is your love language. Oh, for sure. Same.

For sure. Can you explain how important it is to be able to tease people that you love? Oh, my God. This is funny because both Barack and Craig will say that I don't let them tease me. See, we have a deal, Barack and I, in our marriage. And it started very early. It's like, I can tease you, but you cannot tease me. You know?

So when he does, I was like, oh, oh, oh, wait a minute. What's going on here? And he's like, I'm teasing you, right? I was like, none of that. Because he likes to tease. Oh, my God. Yeah. But when me, Malia, and Sasha, all of us are together, he doesn't stand a chance.

We mercilessly go after him. I believe that. I have no doubt you do because you do it publicly whenever you can. When was the last time you said anything kind about him? It's a 99 to 1 ratio in your public comments. So that's their rule. She and her daughters can tease him mercilessly, and he is not allowed to say anything about becoming over there on the other side of the couch. Only compliments allowed. Only praise. And by the way, I got a tip for you.

Pro tip, Barack. It'll never be enough. It doesn't matter how much praise you heap on her. Could praise everything. Could praise these ridiculous hairstyles she's wearing. The stegosaurus cuts that she's getting with her three bumps on the back of her head or the weird little pigtails up here. It'll never be enough because she's not fill-up-able. Because look at her extraordinary life. Look where life took her. And she's still bitter. She's pissed. She had to pay for the groceries in the White House. She's pissed. She had her own plane, and so did you. But she had to pay the equivalent of a plane ticket for her daughters when she traveled with them. She had to buy for her groceries, just like literally everybody. Literally everybody, including, you think of somebody like J.D. Vance's mom, Beverly, with a 10-year heroin addiction.

Nobody was paying for her groceries. Maybe the public taxpayer paid a little. But everybody pays for their lives, Michelle. You're not unique in that way. You are unique in that your husband was elected president. You were made first lady. You had nearly universal approval. We put you in a 55,000-squ000 square foot mansion, gave you a full staff of people, chauffeurs, drivers, motorcades with armed guards everywhere you went, an 18 or 19 acre estate around you with a rose garden whenever you wanted to go and stop and smell them. But you never did. You were too bitter having a bitter party of one. That's your problem. You were too busy with your bitterness. And it's obvious to the point where you can't even have somebody take a fun pot shot at you because your thin

skin can't handle it. My next pro tip is for you, Michelle Obama, to go back into the private life you were living. Your like me and relate to me tour is failing, as is your podcast. And I think you benefited from the, you know, idea of like the mystery around you, the image that was curated by you and your people. And you're suffering right now from the adage familiarity breeds contempt. I know I'm feeling it. Good luck. That's it. That's all I have to say. We should end the show now. More tomorrow or soon. I've got some thoughts on the Diddy trial. We'll be back with that at some point very soon. Bye. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.